Kupwara: The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kupwara, on Monday dismissed the bail applications of eight police personnel, including a Deputy Superintendent of Police, who are accused of illegally detaining and subjecting a constable to custodial torture at the Joint Interrogation Centre in Kupwara in February 2023.
The case stems from an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) following directions of the Supreme Court, after the wife of the victim alleged that her husband, Constable Khursheed Ahmed Chowhan, was tortured while in custody under the pretext of a narcotics-related investigation.
According to the CBI chargesheet, the constable was unlawfully detained at the interrogation centre between February 20 and February 26, 2023. During this period, he was allegedly assaulted and coerced into making a confession. The investigation has relied on medical examinations, forensic evidence, and CCTV footage from inside the JIC premises to substantiate the allegations.
Prosecutors told the court that CCTV footage dated February 26 shows the constable visibly limping within the premises, which they said corroborates claims of physical abuse during detention.
Those whose bail pleas were rejected include DySP Aijaz Ahmad Naik, Sub Inspector Reyaz Ahmad Mir, Head Constables Muhammad Younis Khan and Tanveer Ahmad Malla, Sergeant Constables Shakir Hussain Khoja and Altaf Hussain Bhat, Constable Shahnawaz Ahmad Deedad, and Special Police Officer Jahangeer Ahmad.
The chargesheet, filed in October, accuses these officials of criminal conspiracy, voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt, using force to extract confession, and wrongful confinement under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
The defence sought bail on the grounds that charges relating to attempt to murder and grievous hurt by dangerous weapons were no longer part of the case, and argued that there had been a material change in circumstances since the previous rejection of bail. It was also contended that the absence of prosecution sanction entitled the accused to default bail.
Rejecting these arguments, the court held that the chargesheet had been filed within the statutory period, ruling out the grant of default bail. The judge further observed that no significant change in circumstances had occurred since the earlier denial of bail, and said that issues relating to sanction and the merits of the allegations would be addressed at the stage of framing of charges.
The prosecution opposed bail, citing the gravity of the allegations, the breach of public trust by uniformed personnel, and the possibility of influencing witnesses if the accused were released.
Concluding that the accused had failed to make out a case for bail at this stage, the court dismissed both applications, allowing the case to proceed to further judicial scrutiny. (KNT)
